Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Prabin Das And Anr on 11 February, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010096142021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/21/2022
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING COMPANY REGISTERED AND
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI, 600014 WITH ONE OF
ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CIBBER HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, GS ROAD,
GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM
VERSUS
PRABIN DAS AND ANR.
S/O SRI MAHANANDA DAS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAIL ROAD, BARPETA, PO, PS AND DIST BARPETA,
ASSAM, PRESENT ADDRESS, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI
2:SMTI PRATIVA DAS
W/O SRI MRIGEN DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUJIRDAHATI
PO
PS AND DIST BARPETA
ASSAM
78130
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C PAUL
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
11.02.2022
Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether, in view of the settled position of law as notified by the Government
under the M.V. Act from time to time, the L'd Commissioner is justified to arrive
at a contrary findings pertaining to the validity of the Driving Licence in holding
that the category of PSV is inclusive of HMV category and consequently such
perverse findings render the impugned Judgment and Order is liable to be set
aside and quashed?
2. Whether, the L'd Commissioner committed an error on substantial question of
law in not appreciating the legal position of law based on records that both PSV
and HMV categories are altogether different and independent entity and existence
of one category will not suffice the existence of other category and non
appreciation of the matter rendered the entire findings to be perverse and non
existence and impugned Judgment and Order of that point of view is not
maintainable in law ?
3. Whether, in view of the mandatory provisions of the M.V. Act providing that
the driving licence holder for Heavy Transport Passenger Vehicle must have
badge is a mandatory requirement and if the driver of the offending vehicle
ferrying passenger is found without such badge, he shall be treated to have invalid
driving licence, the L'd Commissioner is justified in ignoring the aforesaid
mandatory provision of law and whether in view of such manifest error in law, the
impugned findings is perverse in law rendering the impugned Judgment and Order
Page No.# 3/4
is liable to be quashed and nullity ?
4. Whether, the L'd Commissioner below committed an error on substantial
question of law in not taking into consideration the legal position that a question
of law and question of fact are two different aspect of the matter and although a
question of fact is required to be proved by substantial evidence but a question of
law is not required to be proved and the impugned Judgment and Order as that
legal point of view is liable to be set aside and quashed as nonest ?
5. Whether, the workmen (driver) is entitled to claim compensation
notwithstanding the admitted factual situation that the driving license of the driver
of the offending vehicle (bus) is found to be invalid due to appearance
infringement of the mandatory provision of M.V. Act and whether in view such
apparent infringement of the mandatory provision of M.V. Act, the learned
Commissioner is justified to hold the appellant liable to pay the compensation to
the workmen (driver) declaring him to be entitled for compensation under the
E.C. Act.
The appellant will be at liberty to raise any other substantial questions of law at
the time of hearing.
Issue Notice to the respondents.
Appellant shall take steps for service of notice by registered post with A/D and
other usual process.
Call for the LCR.
List after 6 (six) weeks.
JUDGE
Page No.# 4/4
Comparing Assistant
